I can't see how people can recommend the book so much when in preflop part he says that he defends bb vs late position raise only 14% by 3betting, and it's the same tactic for sb and bb (no calling). For sb it is ok most likely, but this means he folds 86% to btn steal on bb? I know this is for small stakes but it's not nl2, ppl are not so bad.
Also he doesn't call any single hand on btn against co open and thus lowering his position advantage since he lowers stack to pot ratio. Same for bbvssb.
But, like I said above, bb vs steal tactic seems criminal to me.

Thanks for your feedback.

As I have stated repeatedly throughout this thread and many times in the book itself, the numbers listed are meant to be taken as rough guidelines only. As you will see later on in the book in the examples I actually deviate from them in a huge way on many occasions depending on the situation and the players involved. Yes, this involves just calling a raise from the big blind versus an LP steal attempt as well.

You have to understand that I wrote this book with relative beginners in mind as well because they will still read it regardless of whether it is meant for more advanced players or not. A lot of them appreciate having some rough numbers to go by. Also, having them call OOP with a bunch of mediocre hands is likely going to be a very bad thing for their winrate.

I realize that some of the numbers will seem "criminal" to others but they were never meant to be taken this literally in the first place. I could just take the entire section out and save myself a lot of trouble. But more likely I will consider improving it in the future based on feedback like yours. I would encourage you to check out the rest of the book though (it is 500 pages long) rather than base your opinions on a few numbers.

I am glad you are taking it as feedback not as insult since it was meant as feedback.

I saw that you wrote that this is the strategy only vs unknown but still, folding 86% time vs unknown on bb vs btn is too much imo.

Anither thing to reconsider...your co opening range is around 40%. I know guys who are crushing nl100-nl400 and even they have rfi on co 30% playing taggish style. That's why 40% seems like an overkill for micros.

If I'm playing nl10 and have never read or studied anything poker before am I better if starting with the new book or reading the first crushing book first?

NL10 is kind of the cutoff. What I always say is this, if you breezed through the lower stakes (NL2 and NL5) and you are finding NL10 pretty easy, then don't bother with CTM and just get MSS. If you had any difficulties with NL10 or below, then start with CTM.

planning on getting this, the reviews so far seem good. It says the book is focused on 10-100nl, are these categorized in different sections? (like how crushing the micros had 5nl and 10nl). From what I saw in the table of contents it is mashed all into one so I'm guessing this book is focused mainly on opponents rather than the stakes itself?

Hi Ben,

You are correct. I do not lay out different strategies for the stakes discussed in this book like I did in CTM. Certainly there are some significant differences in the way that the games play between NL10 and NL100 but the book is already 500 pages in length.

This is why I instead focus heavily on playing the player so to speak in the 100+ examples. 95% of them deal with regs because this is something that these stakes absolutely do have in common. That is, regs (often decent ones) will be your main opponents.

ahh I see what you mean, got this last night about 180pgs in now and I gotta say well done.. seems you have topped ctm with this one gjgj

Thanks Ben. Glad you are enjoying it and I hope it helps you where it matters most, at the tables.

how expensive is it?

this 6 max or FR

if 6 max can it be applied to rush/zoom?

It is currently available for $29.95 on my website.

Modern Small Stakes is applicable for both 6max and full ring. Many parts of the book were split into 6max and full ring sections. Also, the 100+ example hands in the book are split almost exactly 50-50, 6max and full ring.

While I do not specifically mention the rush/zoom games very often, it is also completely applicable to these formats. The reason why is that the strategical differences between these games and the regular tables are very minor in nature. For this reason it is extremely unlikely that anybody is ever going to write a poker book specifically for rush/zoom.

I have just got the book and it's a great read so far.

I want to quote a sentence from the book so people that haven't read it yet don't get the wrong idea that blackrain says to 3bet 100%

"There will of course be some situations where flatting just simply makes the most sense anyways. " page 132.

Also he goes into great detail later of when to 3bet and why to 3bet.

Blackrain79,

I want to download the PDF of 'Modern small Stakes' but i'm not sure which device to download it on, my Ipad, my laptop #1 or #2.

Is it possible to buy the PDF and download it on multiple devices?

Any help on this from anyone would be appreciated.

Tayz.

When I got the download link the email indicated it would expire after five attempts, which implies you can do this.

Hi Tayz,

Along with what jimdo said you can also send me an email at blackrain79@dragthebar.com if you need any additional copies.

You can always just download it, then mail it to yourself so you always have a copy in your inbox, which can be accessed from any computer/pad/phone.

I've not bought the book, but on your website, I saw that you suggested 3betting a range of 22+, AK-AT, A9s, KQ, KJ, KTs, QJ from the blinds, facing a CO or BU open.

I assume you're 3betting all those hands for value? I'm just wondering how you play the lower end of that range in 3bet pots? Say the flop comes relatively dry ace high, you have AT off suit. Are you going for 3 streets here? I don't see a worse hand that will call 3 streets. Are you going for 2 or 1 street? You'd be put into a lot of tough spots if you do that. Same applies to KJ and QJ. I don't understand what hands you get value from for more than 1 street.

3betting all pocket pairs seems a little weird also.

Hi smokybacon,

Can you please link to where I said that on my website? This will help me understand the context of the statement regarding for instance the stakes that I am talking about, the opponent type etc. All of this can dramatically affect what I actually meant there.

http://www.blackrain79.com/p/modern-small-stakes.html

Image 18/23, towards the bottom - page 145, entitled 'SB and BB 3Betting Range (Versus CO/BTN Raise)'.

Thanks. It is really difficult to discuss this exact statement in isolation for a few reasons.

As I state repeatedly before the section that you are referring to, the starting hands here are simply suggestions or rough guidelines to go by. Some people simply like to be told exactly what hands to play in certain situations and this is why they were included. They were never meant to be taken so literally. Some people will disagree with certain hands that were included or not included and that is totally fine.

And even more importantly is the crucial fact that the suggestions that you are referring to here are for unknown opponents only. There are numerous example hands later in the book where I choose to play a certain hand in a situation like this completely different because I have knowledge of the player type. There is also an entire section later on where I make custom recommendations for a situation like this based on factors such as the opponent type, game flow and any particular dynamic that is in place.

I don't mean to give you such a "it depends" or "you need to read the book" answer but that just kind of is what it is. The book is 500 pages long and includes 100+ example hands for a reason. Every situation is different at these stakes and there are no cookie cutter answers.

Hi Everybody,

I just wanted to share my opinion of Modern Small Stakes. Several weeks ago I bought the e-book hoping to plug huge holes in my game. Like for many players starting out, my results roller coastered like nuts. Something was wrong with my approach.

After finishing the book my eyes opened to a whole new way of playing. First off, I have read other books about poker. All of them talk about basic concepts such as playing in position, exploiting weakness, and so on. Problem is their approach was vague. Explaining a concept as important is one thing, being able to explain how best to apply it at the table is something else. There never seemed to be enough examples on how to apply things. After finishing those books I felt better informed on how to play better, yet somehow remained clueless.

Modern Small Stakes takes a comprehensive approach to playing the game beyond the micros. While extremely dense with information, the material is easy to follow. The book relies heavily on HUD stats to figure out best way to classify opponents, and then exploit flaws in their game. That’s one of the coolest things about the book, something no other author has talked about. See, in my experience, poker strategy usually groups all players as if they basically approach things the same way. Therefore, talk of how to adjust takes on a cookie-cutter approach. What Modern Small Stakes does differently is to classify players into specific player types based on hand history tendencies. It then carefully explains how to exploit good regulars, bad regulars, and recreational players. Each player type approaches small stakes differently. Knowing how to develop customized betting lines against each of them is at the heart of Modern Small Stakes.

There are 102 in-depth, easy to follow hand history examples. Hand examples are broken up into HUD stats for an opponent type, then street-by-street analysis of effective betting lines. Needless to say, after reading the book, I now feel confident about finding the right approach to crushing any player type.

Nathan writes about a subject that strangely has been largely ignored by the poker community—intentionally putting an opponent on tilt. In the hundreds of articles and handful of books I have read on poker, none have talked about this subject. At small stakes players are getting better; skill edges thinner. Therefore, having the ability to routinely push another reg out of his/her comfort zone, effectively reducing them into a spew-tard fish, is incredible.

Most players study obvious things like hand ranges, starting hand requirements, and so on. Modern Small Stakes covers those subjects very well by the way. Few, however, seriously consider the idea of psychological warfare online. Therein lays a huge edge just waiting to be exploited by those players willing to learn it. Modern Small Stakes teaches a systematic method of beating players in a way they likely have never experienced before. That is awesome.

Hopefully, after taking time to read this review you will have enough motivation to give Modern Small Stakes a chance. The book is definitely worth the investment.

The best known standards dont 3b those but suited nor do they 3b small pairs. What comes to calling or folding slicks and so, depends on opponents range and if u can float him.

I've mostly written this because I'm sick of being called a troll by the author and others every time I criticise his work, and in particular this book. This is a pretty detailed list of what I find to be wrong with Modern Small Stakes (though I'm pretty confident the author has me on ignore at 2p2 due to being upset with the generality of my criticisms). This is not intended as a normal review, so please don't comment on the prose (or lack thereof):

In 'The Long Run and the Short Run': "I am not a mathematics expert so I am not going to break out a bunch of standard deviation calculations for you" - then surely his impressionistic opinion is useless to anyone who already beats the smallest stakes his book claims to be a step up from?

In his discussion of ideal stats:

Ideal AF in 6max: 3.5 (wtf, this hasn't been true in years and indicates an approach of calling far too little postflop)
Ideal fold to steal: 76 in FR and 74 in 6max - firstly, there can be no justification for a difference between the two and none is offered. Secondly, both of these values are far too high and indicate someone against whom one should exploitatively open extremely wide on the BTN.
Ideal fold to 3b after raise: 62 in FR and 60 in 6m - again, no reason for a distinction, and secondly, these are a little too high.
Ideal fold to flop cbet: 58 FR, 56 6m - significantly too high and is so far from a minimum defence frequency it's pretty laughable.
Cbet flop: 72 FR, 74 6m - wtf no, this is again about 20 points off (too high). This isn't 2010.
Fold to preflop 4b after 3b - 60, 58. Too high.

He uses 'fold to river float bet' on his HUD. This is, for the most part, a useless stat. I sometimes use it in database review - but, to provide an example, a student who had a 40k hand database had a total of NINE samples on this stat. Realistically we're never going to gather a useful sample on this stat without datamining.

Again, there's the 'I'm not a stats expert' disclaimer when talking about sample sizes. Why talk about it then?

"Unless the table is amazing, it is often a good idea to consider leaving or changing seats when a good reg sits on your direct left" - this simply isn't possible above about 25NL in 2015.

"Balancing your range is quite simply:
 The act of manipulating the range of hands that you show up with in any given scenario in such a way that your opponent is quite literally guessing about what you have as often as possible"

This is misleading.

"Often instead of trying to recall my past history with a specific opponent I will just play according to certain game theory frequencies versus all of them"

I guarantee he doesn't play with anything remotely approaching 'game theory frequencies'.

Opening 40% from the CO in FR, and 42.7% in 6m, as he recommends, is quite simply ridiculous unless there are some awful fish somewhere or the BTN is a massive massive nit.

Raising 40% from the SB against a limper is also far too wide.

In fairness to him, he does note that "When a good aggressive reg is in the blinds my range from EP and MP will not change but my LP range will be lowered by as much as 50%" - and this makes his CO range nitty but okay. However, halving his ~50% BTN RFI is far far far too tight.

"We have three possible options when the pot has been opened in front of us, 3Bet, flat or fold. 3Betting will yield by far the highest EV of these three options because of the power of initiative" - this is clearly far too general of a statement (though it is qualified a little later) - but also 'initiative' is nothing more than a BS, lazy proxy for 'range advantage', and one which might also sometimes be inaccurate.

Changing 3bet value ranges significantly against the same position opener based on hero's position (aside from being IP/OOP) is unwise.

All of his 3betting ranges are depolarised which is clearly a bad idea, especially in situations like BTN vs CO (where he advocates no flatting range). Also note "I will have a small and varied flatting range for balance here against some of the better regs" again shows his complete misunderstanding of balance - it is far easier to balance one continuance range than two, and it is not unbalanced to only 3bet or fold BTN vs CO (but it is still bad).

His 3betting range does not change between SBvsBTN, BBvsBTN, SBvsCO and BBvsCO. Considering how dramatically different these ranges should look this is silly.

He only flats 22-TT from the blinds vs EP or MP. This is easily exploitable by anyone with a pulse (and again, SB range should differ substantially from BB range).

!!!!NO FLATTING RANGE BB VS CO OR BTN - this is ****ing insane and explains why he thinks folding 76% to steals is okay.

3bets 30% bvb and calls 0% - minimum defence frequency is 37.5% against a 3x and realistically anyone should be defending more than that if they have a calling range - still, this strat allows SB to raise any two profitably and also lets SB 4bet a ridiculously huge range.

I'm not going to bother going through FR ranges but I assume they'll be about as horrid. Also, for whatever reason he 3bets 24% bvb and calls 0% still which is even more awful and inexplicable as there should be no difference in bvb play in full ring.

"Another situation where we should consider an alternative line is when there is a highly aggressive player (TAG, SLAG, LAG or Maniac) left to act behind us. If we just call a raise with a premium hand it might be too tempting for them not to go for the squeeze. This allows us to put in the 4Bet when it comes back to us and get the maximum amount of money in the middle preflop" - this might very occasionally be true but 'sometimes' is vague enough that this is harmful to anyone who reads the book.

Soon, there's a load of pages of this "500-page" book (which incidentally seems to contain about 150 words/page - and that's not when it's one of the very significant number of pages which are simply pictures) filled with 25 examples on how to apply his simple strategy. If you tend to dribble while you read these might be useful.

"a 4Bet effectively draws a line in the sand that says “if you want to continue, we are playing for stacks.”" - uh, no. People call 4bets a decent amount and this still leaves a flop SPR of about 1.5-1.8.

"Therefore, whether we make it 4x, 3x or 2.2x [when we 4bet] is not going to affect their decision to any large degree" - only if you're playing droolers.

There is then some very brief discussion of one of the few potentially useful topics in the book - defending vs 3bets - including this little gem: "The last thing that I want to mention is that unlike with 4Betting, position definitely matters when I am considering whether or not to flat a 3bet". It seems like the recommendation is to 4bet a static range consisting of JJ+ and some bluffs regardless of position. This may not be the author's intent but it comes across that way, both through the whole passage and taking that statement alone.

"As you can probably guess, 5Betting will be our preferred response simply because it is the most profitable of the three options when facing a 4Bet" - this is justified basically as 'because it is aggressive'.

"We will almost never call a 4Bet" - this is frankly terrible and will result in 5betting too much or folding too much to 4bets.

Again, discussion of 5betting seems to indicate that a static 5bet range of JJ+, AK is advisable. No. It is not.

Discussion of 'history' - this is better phrased in terms of 'indications that villain will be playing an unbalanced range' and is unacceptably vague.

As a mitigating factor, I think that the discussion of board texture is decent as a quick guide (and anything I haven't mentioned up to this point is acceptable) but nothing will replace spending hours working with programs like Flopzilla.

"When against just a single opponent these numbers [cbet frequencies] will probably be closer to 80%" - see discussion above. 80% is far far far too high except on a few isolated textures.

There is a recommendation of a 60% pot cbet with no discussion of when this might be varied. This is "justified" by showing that with 14% realisable pot equity when called, cbetting this size yields a profit. What if other sizings yield more profit?

There is a close to useless discussion of cbetting in 3bet pots, mitigated by noting that cbets in general should be smaller in 3bet pots. This is followed by more examples, and discussion of facing a donk bet that is again, so limited it borders on useless.

"The better regs will raise CBets somewhere between 15-30% of the time" - replace 'better regs' with 'spewtards' and this becomes somewhat accurate.

Throughout the rest of the discussion of flop play, there is very limited general advice given, and a fair few example hands, most of which are misplayed in some way or other. It would honestly take far too long to discuss how they're misplayed so I simply won't. Discussion of the turn and river follows the same pattern.

As something positive to say about the book, the section on database review, aside from generally displaying a lack of understanding of statistical significance, is excellent and recommended. The section on tilt is also okay, though clearly overshadowed by books which specialise in the mental game.

Do also note that the structure very much indicates, like the fatal flaw of Crushing the Microstakes, that what is being taught is a strategy, rather than how to think about poker.

I bought the book. And me personally I take these recommended "ideal" stats not as ideal, but as a some sort of good starting point around micros/small stakes and I plan (of course) not to strictly go for them, but from THESE basic stats I plan to deviate in terms of exploitative play.

You think this is still bad ?